In an interview to The Indian Express, Chandrachud, who accomplished a 12 months on November 9 because the Chief Justice of India, mentioned, “We must recognise that the Constitution itself sought to reform social practices to ensure citizens were not dominated on the sites of religion, caste, ethnicity or other cultural markers.”

“There are many provisions in the Indian Constitution which are unique to India such as the abolition of untouchability or the content of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). The DPSPs include obligations on the government to legislate for free legal aid, local governance through panchayats, and the protection of the environment,” he mentioned.

Even after the Constitution was framed, it has been amended over 100 instances, Chandrachud identified. “Multiple generations of Indians, through Parliament, have given voice to their own aspirations for the Constitution through the amendment process. For example, entire governmental structures such as the Panchayats and the GST Council have been created through constitutional amendment alone and are uniquely Indian,” he mentioned.

Keeping these details in thoughts, one should perceive the Indian Constitution as a doc which imbibes common constitutional values, whereas on the identical time regularly adjusting these rules to handle the issues going through India, he mentioned. It is a doc conceived, adopted, amended, and regularly operated by Indians, he added.

In sure conditions, Chandrachud mentioned, the adoption of the Constitution little doubt marked a tectonic shift which demanded a re-thinking of Indian societal practices. “But we should not reject constitutional morality because it may sometimes be in tension with existing social practices. We must recognise that the constitution itself sought to reform social practices to ensure the citizens were not dominated on the sites of religion, caste, ethnicity or other cultural markers,” he mentioned.

The CJI mentioned that “the Supreme Court Collegium has clearly laid down ‘diversity’ as one of the factors to consider” within the matter of appointment of judges. “This includes gender, caste, and regional diversity from the various High Courts”, he mentioned including “we have tried to balance diversity with the all-India seniority of the judges”.

CJI Chandrachud famous that for a few years, the Bar was, sadly, the only real protect of males and “this is reflected by the limited presence of women amongst the senior High Court Judges”. This “paradigm is changing in the judiciary”, he mentioned, citing the latest outcomes of judicial service examinations in lots of states.

“As the demographics of the legal profession change, we will continue to see more diversity. But the task of today is to ensure that we do not fail the exceptional candidates who have battled against the incredible prejudices of gender, religion, and caste, to rise to the level of Judges of the High Courts,” CJI Chandrachud mentioned.

Asked whether or not his latest assertion that courts have develop into an necessary centre for social dialogue signifies a diminishing function of Parliament in selling such dialogue, the CJI mentioned, “Parliament and the Court have different institutional structures and different powers. There are sometimes issues which require intervention of the Court. For example, Parliament passes legislation that can bring about important social changes, but it is not designed to stop individual cases of rights violations. Citizens will always choose their forum of redress based on the institution’s role and capabilities.”

According to him, typically “the Court and Parliament work in a complementary fashion”. Citing the instance of the Vishakha tips in opposition to sexual harassment at office issued by the SC which later grew to become legislation, he mentioned “In that way, both Parliament and Judiciary facilitate a social dialogue but also speak to each other. Citizens may approach the Courts to act as a mediator in their quest for their rights. In those cases, the Supreme Court has asked questions from the government to enable citizens to seek redressal of their issues. However, courts are also bound by institutional boundaries laid down in the Constitution.”